Forum Posts Feed
At last -- my review of ConnectedText as an outliner
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Oct 25, 2012 at 07:46 AM
Dr Andus wrote:
>Although wikis are often hailed as our liberators from
>hierarchical thinking, it is possible and can be even useful to view a wiki as a
>hierarchical structure.
To be clear, I do not disagree with the above statement. However, same as with TheBrain, the unlimited degrees of freedom of connection are in my view non-conducive to (obviously) hierarchical structures. In outliners that can support cloning and/or tagging one can actually re-create the same relationships as in a complex wiki. Yet conceptually the structure is still a hierarchical outline.
In an outliner, the (limited) outline is a starting frame of obvious structure, to which one can create ‘exceptions’, e.g. cloned items or links to other points in the hierarchy. In a wiki, the (unlimited) relationships are the starting point, and these you must maintain under strict control in order to produce an (obviously) structured hierarchy.
To take another example, one can use LEGO blocks to create furniture. However, LEGO is not particularly conducive to furniture building, nor would it be ‘fair’ to compare LEGO to IKEA as furniture building frameworks. However, one could well write a guide to using LEGO for furniture building without needing to go into such a comparison.
I.e. my comment was mostly meant in respect to Steve’s choice to not compare ConnectedText with the other outliners within the same context.
Posted by Dr Andus
Oct 25, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>In an outliner, the (limited) outline is a starting frame of
>obvious structure, to which one can create ‘exceptions’, e.g. cloned items or links
>to other points in the hierarchy. In a wiki, the (unlimited) relationships are the
>starting point, and these you must maintain under strict control in order to produce
>an (obviously) structured hierarchy.
Yes, but that is also partly a mindset and a question of available visualisation tools. I.e. you could force yourself to use either as the other, provided the right kind of visualisation tools are available. I’m saying that there is benefit to such unorthodox uses.
>Yes of course, but here’s the catch:
>Where can you actually see and work with all levels of that outline?
>Wikis don’t guide you towards hierarchical thinking. Unless you have a plan in your mind,
>you are most likely to connect everything to everything, with no consideration of levels.
I don’t know of other wikis, but in CT this is exactly what I use the Navigator for. It allows you to see your network as a partial outline hierarchy. It’s partial because only the parent-child relationships are represented, not the sibling order (but it’s still useful). In the Navigator I mostly use the “vertical outline” view (just realised it’s even called an “outline”):
http://drandus.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/navigator.png
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Oct 25, 2012 at 02:42 PM
In a standard wiki (if such a thing exists), hyperlinks would be the number one means of providing structure to and navigating among your notes. In ConnectedText, however, there are so many other ways to get around your information and for creating structure that it somewhat obviates the need for these links.
This is important to me, because I need to stop myself from creating a link every chance I get. Linking everything possible is neither necessary nor productive in my view. I’m not suggesting that links should be avoided altogether or anything like that. More that links should be used judiciously to take advantage of CT’s other features, and where the quick access to the connected note would be of value. (I should state that I’m talking about using CT as a personal information or project manager, not as a reference archive, where links would be of more value.)
I’m curious about what others think about linking; what hyperlinking practices make sense to you?
Steve Z.
Posted by Dr Andus
Oct 25, 2012 at 05:01 PM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>I need to stop myself from creating a link every chance I get. Linking everything
>possible is neither necessary nor productive in my view.
Although I do subscribe to that view, it might depend on one’s particular needs and uses. I use CT as an analytical solution, therefore each link needs to be meaningful, conveying some meaningful connection or fulfilling some logistical purpose in conveying meaning.
For me linking in CT is a way of constructing larger objects (analytical models) or networks of objects. If everything is connected to everything, then the model loses its usefulness because you can’t identify any interesting relationships or the overall shape of the object(s) constructed.